DELIA VALLE VDA. DE ORTIZ, NECITAS ORTIZ, FREDDIE PANGANIBAN, NANCY ORTIZ-MEJIA, AND LINO MEJIA, PETITIONERS, VS. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HON. AMADOR T. VALLEJOS, AS PR…

GANCAYCO, J.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, Branch XXII in Civil Case No. 99893, dismissing the
complaint filed by Ildefonso Ortiz, now substituted by his heirs, herein
petitioners, against respondent Land Bank of the Philippines.

Ildefonso Ortiz was the owner of some parcel of land located in
Camarines Sur which where affected by Presidential Decree No. 27 entitled
“Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants from the Bondage of Soil Transferring To
Them the Ownership of the Land They Till and Providing the Instrument and
Mechanism Therefor. “Under this law, which was promulgated on October 21, 1972,
the cost of the land shall be paid by the tenant- farmer directly to the
landowner in kind or in cash depending on their agreement.^[1]

On July 21, 1973, Presidential Decree no. 251 was promulgated
which providedm among others, that it will be the Land Bank which would pay the
landowners and the tenants shall in turn, pay the Land Bank the cost the
property covered.^[2] The modes of payment
under any of which the Land Bank shall finance the aquisition of the farm lots
were enumerated as follows:

Ortiz elected to be paid under the first mode of settlement and
the respondent on April 1, 1974, upon approval of his claim, paid him the total
sum of P1,564,359.00^[4] in cash and
interest-bearing bonds for his landholdings. To arrive at the total acquisition
price of said property, the respondent band used the computation provided for
Presidential Decree No. 27 and deducted the sum of P11,141.00 — the amount of
rentals paid to Ortiz by the tenants from October 21, 1972. Said computation is
as follows:

“For the purpose of determining the cost of the land to be
transferred to the tenant-farmer pursuant to this Decree, the value of the land
shall be equivalent to two and one-half to two and one-half (2½) times the
average harvest of three normal crop years immediately preceding the
promulgation of this Decree.”^[5]

After recieving the price for his landholdings, Ortiz executed
deeds of assignment of rights^[6] in favor
of the Land Bank whereby he formally assigned, transferred and conveyed to the
Land Bank all his claims, rights, interests and participation over his
landholdings. However, on October 24, 1975, Ortiz filed a complaint with the
Court of First Instance of Manila against the respondent Land Bank alleging that
he is entitled to receive interests at the rate of 6% per annum from and
effective October 21, 1972.

On November 23, 1976, the lowe court rendered a decision
dismissing the complaint. Hence this petition.

The only issue at bar is simply whether or not under the law,
the respondent Land Bank is obliged to pay 6% interest on the acquisition price
of Ortiz’s lands for the period between October 21, 1972 the date of
promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27 and April 1, 1974, when the Land Bank
paid him said acquisition price.

Petitioners contend that under Presidential Decree Nos. 27, 85
and 251, the cost of land transferred to the tenant-farmer that respondent Land
Bank has to pay includes interest at the rate of 6% per annum accuring from the
promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27. In support of this posture,
petitioners cite the following provisions of law:

Par. 9, Presidential Decree No. 27 —

“The total cost of the land, including interest at the rate of
six (6) percentum, shall be paid by the tenant in fifteen (15) equal annual
amortizations”;

Section 2, Par. 1(d) of Presidential Decree No. 251 —

“7. To finance and/or guarantee the acquisition, under
Presidential Decree No. 85 dated December 25, 1972, of farm lots transferred to
tenant-farmers pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 dated October 21,
1972.”

The provisions of Presidential Decree No. 27 and Presidential
Decree No. 85 cited by petitioners deal with the relationship between the
tenant-farmer and the landowner alone. Paragraph 9 of Presidential Decree No. 27
only referes to the manner of payment set to be followed by the tenant-farmer in
paying for the total cost of the land transferred to him, that is, in 15 years
of 15 equal annual amortizations. Sec. 2, paragraph 19d) of Presidential Decree
No. 85, on other hand, fully fuarantees such payment by the tenant-farmer.
Nowhere in Presidential Decree No. 27 was the Land Bank ever mentioned. Neither
is there any indication in both Presidential Decree No, 27 and 85 that payment
of interest should begin on October 21, 1972. Accordingly, We hold that the
assertion that under these laws, the respondent Land Bank is obliged to pay for
a 6% interest beginning the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27. is
deviod of merit.

It is clear that Presidential Decree No. 27. is the law
applicable to this case as it is this law which gives the Land Bank the power to
finance and/or guarantly the acquisition of farm lots transferred to
tenant-farmers pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27.^[7] Section 7 which deals, among others, with
the modes of payment under which the Land Bank shall finance the acquisition of
farm lots is the more specific provision of the said law, pertinent to this
case.

Petitioner’s ascendant Ortiz admitted in his complaint that he
close to be paid under the first mode of settlement,^[8] by which he would receive 10 % in cash and
the balance in Land Bank bonds, and nothing more. Such bonds would be earning 6%
interest per year maturing in 25 years. Respondent Land Bank paid him in
accordance with the law and in conformity with what he freely chose among the
modes of payment enumerated.

Petitioners do not question the cash payment nor the issuance
of the bonds. But then, they insist on their right to receive interests due from
October 21, 1972. Yet the law is very clear — there is not even a hint of the
alleged obligation of the Land Bank to pay such interests.

The mere fact that respondent Land Bank admits, as is shown in
the deeds of assignment,^[9] that it will
be subrogated to the right of the landowner to collect and receive yearly
amortizations from the tenant-farmer does not at all mean that respondent Land
Bank should pay the aforementioned interests. Such subrogatio is clearly
provided for in Presidential Decree No. 251, to wit:

“Whenever the Bank pays the whole or a portion fo the total
cost of farm lots, the Bank shall be subrogated by reason thereof, to the right
of the landowner to collect and receive the yearly amortizations on farms lots
or the amount paid including interest thereon, from tenant farmers in whose
favor said farm lots had been transferred pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
27, dated October 21, 1972.”^[10]

Nor can the above-mentioned provision be construced to imply
that respondent Land Bank should pay interests beginning October 21, 1972. One
of the established rules of saturtory construction is that Courts may not make
an implication which the language of the stature may not warrant.^[11] Also, it has been repeatedly declared
that where the land speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room
for intepretation or construction, there is only room for application.^[12] In the particular law under
consideration, no ambiguity can be found.

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrond with the
respondent Land Bank’s deduction from the total payment on the landholdings of
the amount of P11,141.00 conrresponding to the rentals paid by the tenants to
Ortiz since October 21, 1972. This was done in compliance with Department
Memorandum Circular No. 8 issued by the Department of Agrarian Regorm in
1974.^[13]

Finally, this Court took note of the fact that petitioner’s
predecessor, Ortiz executed the following affidavits in which he stated:

“That I/we hereby agree that the bond certificates which from
part of the proceeds of my landholdings shall begin to earn interest only on the
date of approval of my/our claim for payment and not earlier;

‘That I/we hereby further warrant and guarantee that all
payments/proceeeds received by me/us from the Land Bank as
settlement/compensation under Land Transfer Claim No. 74-018A and 74-018-R shall
absolute and render the Land Bank forever free of liability for any pending
and/pr new claims and liens on the land transferred under P.D. No. 27, and that
I/we shall well and truly defend the Land Bank at my/our own cost and expenses
against any and all claims of third person(s) asserting themselves to be the
rightgul claimant of the payment/proceeds received by me/us from the Land Bank,
and shall well and truly pay in full any and claims or assertions of said nature
which may be established as valid and well-founded by the final judgment of any
court of competent jurisdiction.

‘That I/we shall abide with all existing policy, rules and
regulations of the Land Bank and with those that may be issued in the future
affecting my/our bondholdings.’ (Italics types supplied)

(Affidavits executed on October 3, 1975 and October 22,
1975)”^[14]

Upon the foregoind, the decision appealed from must be, as it
is hereby affirmed, with the costs against herein petitioners.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Yap(Chairman), Narvasa, Cruz, and Sarmiento,
JJ., concur.

Melecio-Herrera and Feleciano, JJ., on leave.